There is a common agreement to exclude the recusal
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 7:09 am
“The Code did not mention a ground for suspicion that other laws provided for: prejudgment, the judge’s statement in advance on the merits of the case. The Italian Code provided for it in the form of advising the party (“dare consiglio” , art. 116, no. 9), that is, giving him an opinion , written or verbal, it does not matter. In the German Code such a ground is not listed in art. 41 (grounds for exclusion – “ Ausschlieszung ”) but in the general formula of art. 42 (refusal – “Ablehnung”): grounds that justify suspicions of partiality”.
LOPES DA COSTA continues, believing that this form of bias is included in art. 185, no. III:
“When the judge has advised the party, there is no doubt about bulk sms colombia the inclusion of this fact as justification for the suspicion of bias in art. 185, no. III. There is more than evidence of bias (due to an obvious error, the text says impartiality): there is proof; the fact shows that the judge has an interest in the case”.
LOPES DA COSTA concludes by citing MORTARA, for whom the suspicion is clear, except in the case where the judge expressed himself abstractly on a question of law:
“There is a common agreement to exclude the recusal, when it is a question of an opinion expressed in abstract on a question of law . The law, however, disregards a case that was worthy of consideration: that of the magistrate who, even without giving an opinion, in the technical sense of the word, has expressed his opinion on the dispute, in concrete terms, before the decision. With due and timely caution, in order to avoid abuses, serious reasons advise the recusal of such a judge”.
LOPES DA COSTA continues, believing that this form of bias is included in art. 185, no. III:
“When the judge has advised the party, there is no doubt about bulk sms colombia the inclusion of this fact as justification for the suspicion of bias in art. 185, no. III. There is more than evidence of bias (due to an obvious error, the text says impartiality): there is proof; the fact shows that the judge has an interest in the case”.
LOPES DA COSTA concludes by citing MORTARA, for whom the suspicion is clear, except in the case where the judge expressed himself abstractly on a question of law:
“There is a common agreement to exclude the recusal, when it is a question of an opinion expressed in abstract on a question of law . The law, however, disregards a case that was worthy of consideration: that of the magistrate who, even without giving an opinion, in the technical sense of the word, has expressed his opinion on the dispute, in concrete terms, before the decision. With due and timely caution, in order to avoid abuses, serious reasons advise the recusal of such a judge”.